Gass 
Book 



REMARKS 

ON THE 

POLICY OF RECOGNIZING THE INDEPENDENCE 
OF THE SOUTHERN STATES OF 
NORTH AMERICA, 

AND ON THE 

STRUGGLE IN THAT CONTINENT. 

BY 

NEMO. 



LONDON: 
EFFINGHAM WILSON, 11 5 ROYAL EXCHANGE. 

1863. 
Price Sixpence. 



MAS 



LONDON 

J2I5IED BY SPOTTISWOCDE AXD CO. 
KEW-STREET S QUAKE 



EEMAEKS, &o. 



I AM neither statesman nor lawyer, but amid the multiplicity 
of despatches, pamphlets, and speeches regarding the war now 
raging in the United States, the words of an ordinary, and an 
unprejudiced person, who has seen a good deal of the world, 
may have some weight with others, who like myself, feel a 
deep interest in that terrible struggle. And who does not ? 

I have been to America, and have listened to the " tall 
talk" of New York about "squashing'"' the South in ninety 
days, and to the very questionable philanthropy of New 
England in its protestations against slavery. But no one 
could tell me how their dicta were to be carried into practice. 

I have also read the letters of "Historicus" which appeared 
in the " Times f and though I may not reason so fluently as he 
has done, it strikes me that even these letters are to a great 
extent substantially as hollow as the " tall talk " of New York 
and the pseudo-philanthropy of New England. 

He hunts for precedents, yet can find none which suit his 
purpose. But what did our forefathers do when they had no 
precedent ? Why, they made one. What should we do if our 
existence depended on the termination of this war? We 
should do as our forefathers did ! Why should Historicus 
seek for a precedent for the recognition of the South, if we 
think it wise and well to admit that country into the family 
of nations ? 

It seems to me that the principles governing this question 
are very simple, though natious may hesitate or doubt about 
their application. 

In that public law, to which all nations profess obedience, 
the principle would seem to be that when a new power conies 
into existence, and presents itself as a distinct, well organized, 
and independent community, it has a strong claim to be ad- 



4 



mitted into the society of nations. It may have separated 
itself from another power ; but if it has maintained its sepa- 
rate existence for a reasonable length of time, despite the 
utmost efforts of that power to compel it to return to its alle- 
giance, and has shown that it is animated by a strong spirit of 
independence, and that it has ability and will to resist all 
efforts to attempt its subjugation, I say that under such cir- 
stances it is the duty of other powers to recognize or acknow- 
ledge the new power, and to extend to it all the rights and 
immunities due to a sovereign state. Nay. it strikes me that 
if nations act otherwise, they neglect a great and solemn duty, 
and may countenance, as in this case, the continuation of a war 
fraught with misery to the human race. If the conditions I 
have named really exist it is incumbent on other powers to 
recognize the community which has complied with them ; and 
if the recognition is withheld the refusal is against the principles 
of public law and of sound policy. 

On the Question of the recognition of the Confederate States 
of America, Historicus, as I have said, resorts to " precedents." 
He labours to show that, as the case of these states now stands, 
there is no precedent for their recognition. Indeed, he insists 
that all the precedents are against it. But what is a pre- 
cedent ? It is only an agreement by certain powers in regard 
to the conduct they thought proper to pursue in a certain case 
which is supposed to have some analogy to the case under 
consideration. But no two cases can ever be exactly parallel. 
For the most part they differ very widely, and at the best 
merely afford what may be called indications or suggestions of 
the course proper to be followed. History does not inform us 
of any civil war in which a people, owning no allegiance except 
to their respective states, withdrew from a confederation formed 
only for the convenience of each state ; and brought such vast 
and well organized armies into the field to defend their 
undoubted rights, and the unquestionable position they had 
taken as the Confederate States. Historicus overlooks alto- 
gether these stern and important facts. He seeks for a prece- 
dent amongst nations sworn to allegiance to a sovereign 
power, and rent asunder by a section of the people. 



5 



In such cases as these, which are apart from the question 
at issue, he endeavours to show that when a state or nation, 
claims a separate existence as a sovereign power by separation 
or by excision from some other state or nation, the rule from 
precedent requires that the war which may have followed 
such excision must come to an end before the independence- 
of the excised state could be said to be attained. But if this 
be true, even on the grounds on which he has based his- 
arguments, it would follow that the recognition of indepen- 
dence of the new state would depend wholly on the will 
of the nation suffering the excision, however hopeless the war 
for reunion may have become in the eyes of all powers, 
including even the recusant belligerent. If Europe is to wait 
till the North recognizes the independence of the South, a 
generation, yet unborn, may have arisen to fill the places of 
those who now rule the destinies of nations before this event 
takes place. Nearly half a century elapsed before Spain 
recognized the independence of Holland. 

Yet Historicus admits, in contradiction to his own rule, that 
in the case put, the question of the independence of the new 
power does not depend upon the will of the parent state. 

In the struggle, however, with precedents, Historicus is. 
confronted with the recent cases of Greece and Belgium, which 
he somewhat evades ; and his labour would seem to be, rather 
by ingenuity and sophistry to maintain the cause of a client, 
than as a statesman to deal with facts as they present them- 
selves, conceding to these facts their proper weight and in- 
fluence. He makes no mention of the part this country took 
when Holland and the Low Countries seceded from Spain, 
and to the manifest benefit resulting to Europe and to the 
cause of civil and religious liberty from their independence. In 
this case we did more than recognize the rebellious provinces. 
We gave Holland, not merely moral, but physical support, for 
we supplied the " rebels " with stores and munitions of war of 
every kind, and sent an army of English soldiers to maintain 
the independence of the revolted states. 

When Belgium separated from Holland, in exactly the same 
way as the Southern have separated from the Northern States-, 



6 



but for less valid reasons, it was said to be a -rebellion, and war 
ensued — and what steps, may I ask, did this country take ? 
Why, though our interests were affected to a very small extent, 
though the Belgian rebels had sworn allegiance to the crown 
of Holland, and while the armies of both parties were in the 
field, we recognized the independence of Belgium. 

Again, in the case of Greece, while the war was pending, 
waged by the Sultan to reduce -the rebellious Greeks to sub- 
mission, and restore the integrity of the Ottoman empire, on 
which we affect to set a high value, we did not hesitate to 
recognize the independence of Greece, and interfered effectively 
in its establishment. 

These are modern precedents. In both, the conditions re- 
quired by Historicus, that the war should have come to an 
end before independence could be recognized, was not only 
not fulfilled, but recognition was extended whilst the struggle 
between the contending parties was doubtful, and the war 
raged in all its fury. 

In dealing with these precedents, Historicus does not attempt 
to meet them with the arguments of a statesman, which I 
presume he is. He affects to ignore them, and sneers at an 
Honourable Member, who had referred to them, charging him 
with ignorance in mistaking a case of " intervention " for a case 
of " recognition." But this is very like pettifogging; Histo- 
ricus cannot but know that an open intervention is in most, 
if not in all, cases combined with and supposes a recognition. 
To recognize a country is merely to acknowledge her as in- 
dependent, as one with whom we may contract treaties and 
engagements. But when we intervene in favour of a country 
which has revolted, we not only signify our approval of her 
proceedings, but we undertake to support her in the career 
on which she has entered, and to assist her in establishing 
her independence. Hence it is that intervention is recogni- 
tion, and much more : it is an acknowledgment of indepen- 
dence combined with an offer or a gift of the means to make 
it effectual. It is trifling with a great subject to contend 
that because we intervened in the case of Greece and Belgium 



7 



there is no precedent for our recognition of the Southern 
States. 

Belgium was a constituent part of Holland, or rather of the 
kingdom of the Netherlands. The Belgians differed essentially 
from the Dutch, not merely in their religion, but what is much 
more important, in their national affinities. After a consider- 
able period of discontent they revolted. They did not, like the 
Confederates, withdraw from an association of free states, 
which they were entitled to renounce, but they revolted 
against the sovereign power, and declared their independence. 
They assumed a name, and, in a few days, organized a Govern- 
ment, and elected a sovereign ; and at the very outset of the 
war which Holland immediately waged to reduce the rebel- 
lious province, England treated the act of separation as a 
thing consummated, and acknowledged the independence of 
the new kingdom. 

Historicus has more ability than fairness. Why should we 
not treat the people of the Southern states as we treated those 
of Belgium and Greece ? And willingly admit that they are, 
what they have proved themselves to be, one of the family of 
" created " nations, and receive at our court the minister they 
send to represent them. 

Historicus labours to show that there can be no recognition 
until it is ascertained what are the boundaries of the country 
to be recognized. The fact that the enemy is in possession 
of a small portion of the sea coast in some of the Atlantic 
and Gulf states, by means of their maritime ascendency, 
and that their invading armies are planted for a time (often 
a very short time), in other portions of the interior states, are 
assumed by Historicus as proofs that the boundaries of the 
new republic are still unascertained, and therefore he insists, 
that until ascertained, there can be no recognition. But 
the question in regard to boundaries has in truth nothing 
to do with the question of independence. They may be ar- 
ranged between the contending parties or settled by a congress. 
Did we wait before we intervened in favour of Greece till she 
had settled her limits with Turkey ? If we chose we might 
recognize at once the independence of Poland, leaving for 



8 



future consideration the question whether Posen and Lithuania 
should be included in her limits. The Confederate States 
know their own boundaries, and we have the most convincing 
proofs that they will and can maintain them. Whilst they 
were constituent parts of the United States the boundaries 
of each state were known and undisputed, and the new con- 
federacy is bound to guarantee those boundaries to the re- 
spective states which have seceded. 

It may be that, in the fortunes of a war of invasion, por- 
tions of the invaded territory may from time to time be 
occupied by the invading army, such occupation changing as 
the invaders advance or recede ; but who, before the lucubra- 
tions of Historicus, ever imagined that the boundaries of 
invaded states fluctuated with the fluctuations of war. The 
dictates of common sense tell, that no power has a right to 
cavil about boundaries, except the conterminous states. It is 
a question which no way concerns remote nations, and I am 
at a loss to understand why Historicus has raised it when 
considering the main and all-important question of recognition. 

The new power claiming the right to recognition is the 
" Confederated States of America/' It consists at present of 
thirteen states, long known as such, whilst constituents of 
the " United States." It may be, at some future day, that 
additional states may be admitted, or it may, by possibility, 
happen that by treaty hereafter the frontier boundary of some 
of the frontier states may be altered ; but none of these events 
affect the existing body politic. 

To the arguments of Historicus I have devoted greater 
space than I would otherwise have done, had I not, from the 
conspicuous position which his letters occupied in the columns 
of the "Times," felt that they had exercised greater influence 
over the public mind in this country than his facts or his 
reasonings entitled them to receive. 

I have seen no other letters or pamphlets on the same side 
of the question worthy of notice, nor have I read any of the 
speeches derogatory of the South and its claims to be admitted 
into the family of nations, which call for any special com- 



9 



mentary. But two men have spoken on that side, distinguished 
amongst then fellows, — Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden, — men who 
in their day and generation have done a good deal to com- 
mend themselves to the notice of the public. Mr. Bright, 
however, by his zeal on the one hand for republican 
institutions, and on the other, his abhorrence of slavery, 
is led away from the great question at issue, and tells us, 
despite all we have seen, that in time all monarchical govern- 
ments must become republican, and that the institution 
of slavery, is alone the cause of this disruption. On these 
matters I will not argue with Mr. Bright, I would rather refer 
him to one of his own class, one of the people, who has visited 
the states, and who, notwithstanding the ties of friendship 
and of interest which bound him to the North, pronounced at 
the first outbmst of the war his conviction of the folly and 
wickedness of a struggle to maintain the integrity of a union 
from which 12,000,000 of people had solemnly resolved to 
secede. If he will turn to the speech of Mr. Lindsay, 
delivered in the House of Commons last session of Parlia- 
ment, he will find the true causes of secession clearly and 
concisely set forth. I give that speech at length in the 
Appendix, as reported in many of the journals of the United 
and Confederate States immediately after it was delivered, and 
which the author has been good enough, at my request, to 
revise. Far more able and eloquent speeches have been 
delivered in the Commons, more particularly by Mr. Horsman 
and Mr. Gregory, but as no other sjDeech gives in so condensed 
a form the great facts connected with this unhappy struggle, 
and as no public writer or speaker had so clearly foretold 
what would be the consequences of this suicidal war, I 
commend it to the study of Mr. Bright. Let him ponder 
over it before he again addresses Mr. Adams in the name of 
the " working men " of England, nine-tenths of whom, I 
believe, would agree with Mr. Lindsay rather than with Mr. 
Bright, in regard to the real objects of the war ; and nine- 
tenths of whom, I also believe, would hold up their hands 
to-morrow in favour of the recognition of the South. They 
must see, and they do see, that the institution of slavery had 



10 



very little to do with this fratricidal war, which Mr. Bright, 
the advocate of peace, and the abhorrer of bloodshed, with 
singular consistency, implores the people of England to en- 
courage till it sweeps from the face of the earth every white 
person, male and female, old and young, who inhabits the 
Southern States, or who owns slaves by purchase or inheri- 
tance. But I turn from the speeches of Mr. Bright, which 
really, on this American question, are unworthy of notice, 
except as showing the mild evangelism of this chosen advo- 
cate of republicanism and freedom, to the more calm and 
logical reasoning of his colleague, Mr. Cobden. I agree with 
Mr. Cobden in most of his general principles, and had he been 
correct in his facts and accurate in his deductions there 
would have been some force in the speech he recently (April 
1863) delivered in the House of Commons. 

Mr. Cobden's theory in that speech appears to me to be that 
the United States had set the example of a prohibitive " foreign 
" enlistment" policy so early as 1794, from a tender regard of 
its duties toward foreign powers, duties which, he said, they 
always scrupulously regarded, and which they continued to 
enforce by the subsequent law of 1818. This theory is very 
pretty, and the principles he has laid down are very much 
to be commended ; but, unfortunately, it has little foundation 
in fact, as the history of the first enactment too clearly proves. 

The facts are as follows, and any person may easily satisfy 
himself in regard to them by reference to the history of the 
United States. 

During the war of the revolution of 1776, the struggling 
colonies formed a treaty with France, by an article of which 
they guaranteed to France her West India colonies. After 
peace was concluded with England in 1783, and during the 
war between that country and France, begun in 17.93, the 
latter, presuming upon the grateful feeling of the American 
people, and upon their animosities towards England, threw 
herself back upon the treaty of guarantee, claiming under 
it the active aid of the United States in her war with 
England. 

With that object and for that end Monsieur Genet was sent 



by France to America in the twofold character of minister and 
incendiary emissary, with orders to land in one of the southern 
states remote from the seat of the Federal Government then 
at Philadelphia, and with instructions from his Government 
that on his way to the capital, he was, at all available points 
on the route to make known his mission to the people, and 
invoke their aid in behalf of France. 

In the winter of 1793 Monsieur Genet landed at Charleston 
in South Carolina, and at once informed the people of the 
United States by proclamation that he had full power from 
his Government to issue military commissions for the purpose 
of enrolling troops for the French service, and that he was 
authorized by his Government to issue letters of marque to 
cruise against British commerce. From Charleston to Phila- 
delphia, his journey was a slow triumphal parade, halting at 
important points in the intermediate states, and disseminating 
his proclamation wherever he went, inviting popular meetings, 
and adopting any measure which he thought was calculated to 
arouse the popular feeling in favour of their late ally France, 
and against their " ancient enemy " England. 

General Washington was then President, and Mr. Jeffer- 
son was his Secretary of State, but, like many other great 
men, though one in patriotism, they had their differences. 
Now it so happened that, at even that early period of 
the life of the infant republic, divisions of party had not 
merely arisen, but had assumed some consistency, and the 
two conflicting sections were then designated as Federalists 
and Republicans. General Washington, it was supposed, 
favoured the policy of the former, whilst Mr. Jefferson was 
understood to be the leader of the latter ; and some acrimony 
was beginning to arise, on the popular supposition that the 
Federal party leaned towards England, whilst the Republicans 
sympathised with France in the war then raging between those 
powers. 

Every writer on this question admits that at that time 
there was certainly a strong pro-Gallic and anti-English feel- 
ing with a considerable portion of the people, and it was upon 
these divisions that the French minister undoubtedly relied 



to drag the infant republic, on the side of France, into a war 
against England. 

But, though differing, on comparatively minor points, both 
General Washington and his Secretary of State, without hesi- 
tation, met Monsieur Genet by a decided and firm remon- 
strance. He, however, disregarded alike the remonstrances of 
the President and his ministers. He insisted in his corre- 
spondence that he had a right to issue French commissions, 
and to arm and equip both vessels of war and privateers for 
the service of France in the ports of the United States. 
On the question thus raised, there could be no difference of 
opinion between American statesmen of either party, and con- 
sequently, to put a stop to these offensive and insulting 
proceedings, the Government issued a " Proclamation of Neu- 
trality," setting forth what were the duties of good citizens in 
abstaining from any acts which would tend to involve the 
country in war, and warning the people of the United States 
against the consequences ; but, in defiance of this proclama- 
tion, Monsieur Genet persevered in his purpose, and took 
issue with the Government of the United States on the 
points of neutrality which the proclamation raised. It was 
during this state of things, that Congress in passed the 
first Act embodying a somewhat new branch of policy in 
regard to foreign nations. It was entitled " An Act in addi- 
" tion to the Act for the punishment of certain crimes against 
" the United States." It prohibited enlistment for foreign 
service, and it made it penal to fit out and arm ships with 
intent that they should be employed in foreign service, to 
cruize or commit hostilities against those with whom the 
United States were at peace, or within the jurisdiction of the 
United States to deliver a commission for any such ship. It 
further made it penal to increase or augment, within the 
jurisdiction of the United States, the force of any ship of war 
or other armed vessel in the service of any foreign state then 
at war with another with which the United States were at 
peace. 

But Monsieur Genet paid no respect even to this Act of the 
Legislature. He actually appealed to the people of the United 



13 



States against the foreign policy of their own Government, 
on which General Washington very properly dismissed him and 
sent him home. Now Mr. Cobden endeavoured, by his speech, 
to lead the House of Commons and the people of England to 
believe that this Act was passed out of pure friendship for us, 
whilst history clearly shows that friendship for England had 
nothing whatever to do with it, and that Congress passed 
it solely to stop the revolutionary mission of this French 
minister, and to save the United States from another war 
with Great Britain. 

The Act of 1818, to which Mr. Cobden also refers, repeals 
the Act of 1794, substituting for it various provisions, not 
varying the intent or policy of its predecessor, but more 
distinctly denning the offences embraced within it. And 
this latter Act was intended more particularly to prevent the 
United States becoming entangled in the various revolutions 
and wars then prevailing on the continent of South America. 
In neither of these Acts is there to be found any curtailment, 
far less prohibition of trade or commerce, in any article what- 
soever. Both Acts were intended to prevent the citizens of 
the United States, by any act at home, from taking part in 
any foreign war. 

Mr. Cobden knows full well, that, by the plainest principles 
of international law, when war exists the belligerents have a 
right to require that other nations shall remain neutral, and 
that if they do not, they make themselves parties to the war 
and are to be treated as enemies. To be made a party to 
the war, however, the act complained of must necessarily be 
of a hostile character whilst it is performed or is in course 
of performance, within the neutral territory. To show this 
the intent is everything, and this will be found the key to the 
rightful construction of the American statutes. 

Common sense tells us, without any reference to inter- 
national law, that every citizen must be held as innocent, unless 
by his act whilst within the jurisdiction of his country, he 
either directly or by implication takes part in a war against 
a power with which his country is at peace. Belligerents 
have a right to demand that citizens or subjects of a neutral 



14 



power shall be so restrained, and if they are not it may be 
treated as casus belli. Hence these foreign enlistment laws 
in their structure, in their interpretation and to what extent 
they shall be enforced, are purely domestic questions, with 
which foreign powers have no right to interfere, as the country 
which makes them determines all these questions for itself 
and on its own responsibility. 

But the difference between the fitting out of a ship of war, 
to which Mr. Cobden refers at some length, and the supply of 
munitions of war to the country engaged in hostilities against 
the nation with which we are at peace, is indeed a very nice 
distinction. If it be penal to build and equip a vessel of war 
for the Southern Confederacy, it ought to be equally penal to 
supply the Government of that country with " munitions of 
war for what is a ship thus fitted and equipped if she is not 
a munition of war? It is difficult for ordinary people to 
comprehend distinctions such as these, nor will it be an easy 
matter to get an English jury to convict an English ship-builder 
for constructing a ship of war for the Confederates, whom we 
have acknowledged as belligerents, whilst any one may supply 
any number of ships of war to the Federals. 

So that, whilst " there is no law in this country which pro- 
(( hibits the purchase, sale, manufacture, or export of arms or 
" munitions of war/' Mr. Cobden need hardly have expressed 
<e great surprise " at the people of England confounding that 
license u with the vital question of furnishing and equipping 
(: ships of war/' 

Notwithstanding my high respect for Mr. Cobden, I am 
astonished that he, of all men, could express sympathy for a 
people whose clergymen from the platform and from the pulpit, 
and in the name of religion express a hope that the war may 
go on until the white race be exterminated in the South, and 
who pray that the feeling of scorn and hatred which they bear 
to the North may be <: whipped out by shot and shell." I am 
indeed surprised that he should advocate the cause of a Govern- 
ment which tolerates in high places such men as General 
Butler, which inundates millions of acres of fertile plains, and 
despatches stone fleets to destroy for ever those harbours which 



15 



God had given for the convenience of commerce, the safety 
of life, and the general use of mankind. Mr. Cobden must 
know that the attempt to destroy, for ever, the harbour of 
Charleston was an outrage against humanity and an insult to 
Providence. 

And yet I have heard the partizans of the North say that 
acts such as these are the " contingencies of war," and that 
this wicked and diabolical war " is no business of ours." But 
it has become our business. Our ships are stopped in their 
legitimate voyages. Premiums of insurance on such voyages 
have advanced from two guineas to ten guineas per cent, 
through the interference of American cruisers, and hundreds 
of thousands of our people are starving in our manufac- 
turing districts. And for what ? For not venturing to do that 
which we are called upon to do by the highest interests of 
humanity, and which we have repeatedly done on less urgent 
occasions. 

The day is fast approaching when the nations of Europe ' 
must interfere to arrest the enormities which are perpetrated 
in a struggle which can have no end but that of separation. 
Humanity demands that they should remonstrate, and if 
remonstrance proves in vain, let them receive into their family, 
and if necessary assist, a people who have proved themselves 
worthy to be a nation. The moral effect of that reception 
would, I am convinced, produce peace ; and I know that a large 
section of the people of the Northern States who are now 
weary of this vain and wicked war, and who can see no end 
to it unless the powers of Europe recognize the South, would 
hail with delight this great act of mercy and of justice. 



16 



APPENDIX. 



Speech of W. S. Lindsay, Esq., in the House of Commons, 
on the 18th July 1862. 

Sir, 

I desire, before you leave the chair, to bring under the 
notice of the House, and submit for its consideration, the 
following resolution : — 

" That in the opinion of this House the States which have 
" seceded from the union of the Republic of the United States 
£< have so long maintained themselves under a separate and 
" established Government, and have given such proof of 
u their determination and ability to support their indepen- 
" dence, that the propriety of offering mediation, with a view 
" of terminating hostilities between the contending parties, 
" is worthy of the serious attention of Her Majesty's Govern- 

ment." 

This subject, Sir, is one of no ordinary importance. We 
are about to part for the session, and, considering the great 
distress which prevails, I think the people will expect that its 
representatives should express an opinion on a subject in 
which they are deeply interested before we separate. The 
means of communication are so rapid, and the course of com- 
merce is now such that nations have become almost as one 
family, and no person can seriously pretend to say that the 
people of this country have no right to offer an opinion in 
regard to the course of events on the other side of the At- 
lantic. In offering that opinion, I will endeavour to avoid 
any remarks which may give pain to the people of the 
Northern States of America ; but, at the same time, as the 
great principle which has hitherto guided their conduct has 
been perfect freedom of speech, I presume they cannot con- 
sistently refuse to concede to us the right which they them- 
selves have so long exercised. Considering, however, the 
object which I have in view, it is not necessary for me to say 
anything (though it is not easily avoided) which can create 
irritation, or rouse the already too excited passions of those 
with whom we have long held commercial and friendly inter- 
course. 

I will, therefore, whatever my opinion in regard to such 
acts as the sinking of the stone fleet at the entrance to 



17 



Charleston Harbour, or the recent proclamation of General 
Butler at New Orleans, refrain from expressing my thoughts, 
and I will confine myself, — 

1st. To a condensed review of the war. 

2ndly. To what I conceive to be the causes of that war. 

3rdly. To the question of how we are affected by the war. 

4thly. To the reason why I am of opinion that the 
only termination to that war must be the separation of the 
.Northern from the Southern States. 

And, lastly. To the opinion which I hold that humanity 
and the interests of the people of Europe, and more especially 
our own interests, — and might I add, the interests of the people 
of the United States, — requires and demands that the war 
should cease. 

In taking a condensed view of the war itself, it may not be 
out of place if I bring to the recollection of the House the 
extent of the country where the war is now raging, and its 
commercial intercourse with other countries. 

In the United States there were 34 distinct states, each 
independent and sovereign, each with a governor and legisla- 
ture, and these states were formed into a Federal Union for 
objects solely for what was considered to be the general public 
good, or, more properly, for the convenience of the whole. I 
will leave others to argue whether this compact is one which 
any given number of states have a right to dissolve, or from 
which any of the states were justified in withdrawing when 
their interests were prejudiced by it. I may, however, be 
allowed to remark, that I have read the constitution of the 
United States, and I can find nothing in it which binds any 
one of those states to remain for any specific period, much less 
for ever, by the Union ; and I certainly cannot find any 
clause in it which gives power to the Federal Government to 
coerce any state, which, by the votes of its legislature, desires 
to withdraw from the compact. Indeed, the great men who 
framed that constitution could not have had any such intentions, 
for as the compact was formed merely for the convenience of 
the respective states in their intercourse with other countries, 
for affording facilities to their postal arrangements by sea and 
land, and for the collection of a revenue sufficient to maintain 
the army and navy, and cover the current expenses of the 
Federal Government, it appears to me absurd to suppose that 
the founders of the constitution meant that the majority of 
the states were to be vested with the power to coerce the 
minority to continue parties to a compact which was framed 
solely for the convenience of all, when it did not suit any one 

B 



18 



of the states to remain. No such powers appear to have been 
given to the majority by the constitution. 

Neither the President, nor the Cabinet, nor Congress, have 
any sovereign rights, like the Queen of England, or the 
Emperor of the French ; and it seems to me to be a monstrous 
abuse of power for any officer in the Federal army to proclaim 
martial law in a sovereign state over a people who owe no 
allegiance, except to the governor of the state to which they 
belong ; and I think history does not record an act so unjust 
as the act of Congress voting the money which the people 
paid for specific purposes, for the purpose of forcing, by blood- 
shed and rapine, the persons who have paid that money, back 
to a compact in which they find it contrary to their interests 
to remain. But other honourable members can deal with this 
question better than I can pretend to do. 

The territory of the 34 states is about 1,880,000 square 
miles, and the population of these states was 32,000,000 at 
the census of 1860. It is divided thus : the 21 states which 
remain by the Union comprise a territory of 1,011,000 square 
miles, and a population of about 20,000,000. The 13 states 
which have withdrawn from the Union, or the compact, have 
a territory of 870,610 square miles, and a population of 
11,609,117, of which 3,912,573 are slaves. Some of the 
states, and more especially a few of the Northern and North- 
western states, are very thinly peopled. For instance, Kansas, 
with an area of 114,978 square miles, has a population of not 
more than 143,000 persons ; and Oregon, with 185,000 square 
miles, has a population of only 52,000, or not one person to 
every three square miles. Besides the United States proper, 
or the states within the Union, there are the territories of the 
United States, viz., Utah, New Mexico, Washington, and 
Nebraska, covering an area of no less than 900,000 square 
miles, but with a population of very little more than 300,000. 

The commerce of the United States with other countries 
has hitherto been very large. The value of the exports in 1860 
amounted to somewhere about 350,000,000 dollars (of which 
two-thirds were the produce of the South), and its shipping 
exceeded 5,000,000 tons, or nearly as much as the shipping of 
Great Britain and all our colonies and possessions ; a very 
large portion of that shipping was and is still employed in 
our trade, and by far the largest proportion of the exports, 
especially the cotton and corn, was bought by the people of 
this country, in payment for which we exchanged our minerals 
and our manufactures ; so that our commercial relations with 
the United States, both in the direct and indirect trades, have 



19 



been very extensive. Indeed, a very large portion of the 
cotton of the Southern States was grown for the use of the 
people of this country. 

The vast country I have thus so briefly described was in the 
early part of last year thrown into all the horrors of a civil and 
fratricidal war. The war seemed to us to be the impulse of a 
moment, but it was not so, as 1 will hereafter endeavour to ex- 
plain ; the first blow, I admit, was struck by the South, by the 
capture of Fort Sumpter in April 1861, but the House should 
understand that self-preservation prompted that blow. Differ- 
ences of opinion on very many questions had long existed be- 
tween the people of the Northern and Southern States, and the 
discussions bet ween the representatives of the respective people 
in Congress had for years been of a character which led every 
reflective mind to feel that the separation of the Union, or 
rather the dissolution of the compact, was a mere question of 
time. The extension of the slave states, the violent language 
of some few of the representatives from the North against the 
institution of slavery, the bitter declamation against the 
owners of slaves, and the personal animosity which existed 
between those who argued that slavery ought at once to be 
abolished, those who held the opinion that it could only be done 
by degrees, and those who argued that without slave labour 
the rich plains of the South would become a desert, all un- 
doubtedly tended to widen the breach between the Northern 
and the Southern States. But as the great majority of the 
people of the North had no desire to see slavery abolished, 
and considered with the South that it was, if not a wise, at least 
a necessary institution, the main cause of disunion was there- 
fore not the question of slavery, but the steady, and, to the 
people of the South, the oppressive increase of taxation in the 
shape of protective import duties from which they, the 
Southern people, so far from deriving any advantage, were 
subjected to serious injury in their intercourse with other 
nations. The overwhelming majorities in Congress of the 
representatives of the people of the North, where the Morril 
tariff originated, and the election of Mr. Lincoln, who was 
pledged to a high protective policy, and to carry out to the 
letter that most impolitic and unwise tariff (the last act of 
Mr. Buchanan's administration), brought to a point the 
disruption of the compact which had been pending for many 
years, and from which various states had threatened to with- 
draw in 1832. The people of the South said, and said with 
great force, that it was contrary to the spirit and to 
the letter of the constitution, to call upon them to bear so 

B 2 



20 



undue a proportion of the Federal taxation : a taxation levied 
not for the purposes for which the compact was formed, but 
for the special and peculiar benefit of the ironmasters of 
Pennsylvania and the manufacturers of New England, who, by 
the increase of population, had obtained undue influence in 
Congress, and were exercising it for their own personal gains, 
regardless of the interests of the states as a whole. 

South Carolina withdrew from the Union. She had actu- 
ally done so before, in 1832. The separation of a state so 
small, and, as the people of the North thought, so insignificant 
in itself, was treated with contempt. But this time South 
Carolina resolved to adhere to her resolution. She sent, in 
January 1861, three of her best and most distinguished 
citizens to Washington to arrange the terms of the separation. 
I understand that the President would not even receive them 
to hear what they had to say, and when they embodied their 
proposals in a memorial, it was returned to them in silent 
contempt. In February 1861 that state again sent to Wash- 
ington her Attorney- General, vested with full powers from the 
governor, legislature, and people of his state to represent 
their case, and he was vested with the fullest powers to make 
ample concessions, so as to avoid a rupture. He was treated 
in a similar manner. The news spread rapidly throughout 
the Southern States. They, too, had been equally oppressed. 
The states of Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 
and Texas were forced by necessity, and, in fact, by self-pre- 
servation, to follow the example of South Carolina, and by 
the votes of the people, and hy ordinances of their respective 
conventions, they declared themselves separate from the 
Union, — from an oppressive compact which they could no 
longer endure. It was towards the end of February 1861 
that these seven states assembled in Congress at the city of 
Montgomery, in Alabama, and there formed the Provisional 
Government, of which Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, was elected 
the President. 

Now, Sir, the first act of this Government was to send 
commissioners to Washington, who, in the language of Presi- 
dent Davis, had full power "to settle all questions of clis- 
u agreement between the two Governments upon principles of 
" right, justice, equity, and good faith." They arrived in 
Washington on the 5th of March 1861, immediately after 
President Lincoln had been inducted into office, and on the 
12th of that month they officially communicated their mis- 
sion to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State ; but no reply was 
received until the 8th of the following month, and, when 



21 



received, it was a peremptory refusal to treat with them ; 
in fact, the Government of Washington would not even 
hear what they had to say. If hon. members will refer 
to the message of President Davis of the 29th April, and 
his supplemental message of the 8th May 1861, which were 
published at the time in this country, they will find the 
history of that mission and its incidents fully set forth. I 
may merely state in reference to it, that I do not think the 
annals of statesmanship furnish any instances of such bad 
faith and deception as Mr. Seward appears to have displayed 
and practised on that occasion. These documents show (and 
we have never had any reason to doubt the veracity of Presi- 
dent Davis), 1st. That at the earnest request of Mr. Seward, 
and, as he stated, " with a view to promote the peaceable 
" settlement of all difficulties/' the commissioners were in- 
duced, through the medium of Mr. Justice Campbell, of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, to forbear from pressing* 
for an early answer to their communication. 2ndly. That 
during the interval the Commissioners were assured, through 
the same source, that Fort Sumter, which commanded the 
entrance to Charleston harbour, and threatened that city, 
would be evacuted ; that no measure changing the existing- 
status, which could prejudice the Confederate States, was then 
contemplated, and that an immediate demand for an answer 
would be productive of evil : and Srdly, that, while these 
assurances were given in the most solemn manner, the Govern- 
ment of the United States was secretly preparing a great 
naval and military expedition, which had for its object the 
reinforcement of Fort Sumter, and that this expedition had 
actually sailed for Charleston, while the commissioners were 
kept at Washington waiting for the " peaceable settlement of 
" all difficulties" promised by Mr. Seward. 

The knowledge of this expedition reached the Confederate 
States only two days before its actual arrival off the port of 
Charleston. The people of the South were aghast. Their 
appeals for justice, their remonstrances against oppressive 
taxation, their prayer to be relieved — and, Sir, it was the 
prayer of 5,444,323 people (for that was the population of 
these seven states) — was to be answered at the cannon's mouth. 
One shout of indignation rang throughout the South. That 
shout was re-echoed from state to city, from city to town, 
from town to hamlet ; and from the mansions of the wealthy 
to the abodes of the humblest poor it made a never-dying 
impression on every man s mind. Who could feel surprised 
at this sudden change from peace to war! Sir, under this 



22 



monarchy, where every man has not merely sworn allegiance 
to his Sovereign, but where all love and adore that Sovereign, 
if the constitutional memorials of 5,000,000 of the people to 
be relieved from oppressive taxation, not necessary for the 
safety or even the welfare of the country, were to be answered 
by an appeal to arms, and, by a naval and military expe- 
dition, clandestinely got up to crush the memorialists, what 
would be the consequence ? Why, there would most assuredly 
be a Revolution ! Even our ancient and much and deservedly 
loved constitution could not stand the shock. Is it, then, 
surprising that the spark of revolution flew with lightning 
speed through every town in the Southern States, where no 
man had sworn allegiance to the President who sent forth 
that warlike expedition, or the Government who, in an evil 
hour, concocted it ? 

Fort Sumter was taken possession of by the people of 
Charleston in self-defence. President Lincoln then issued his 
first proclamation, calling for a force of 75,000 men to " subdue 
the South."' The men of the South flew to arms, not to make 
an aggressive war on the North, but to defend their homes 
and their hearths and the sovereignty of their states. Virginia, 
by the votes of her people, then joined the seven states which 
President Lincoln called for troops to subdue. North Carolina, 
Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky followed in rapid 
succession ; and thus commenced the most terrible civil war 
recorded in history. "With the sad incidents and events of 
that war the House is already too familiar. 

May I now state what appears to me to have been the chief 
cause of the disruption? Each of the 34 states sent two 
members to the Senate ; the smallest sending two as well as 
the largest. On the other hand, the measure for the number 
of representatives returned for each state to the Lower House 
was altogether regulated by population. But the ratio of 
population had of late years entirely changed. In 1790, 
shortly after the constitution was framed, there was one 
member in the House of Representatives to every 33,000 
persons, while in 1850 there was one to every 93,420. For 
many years past the tide of emigration had flown to the 
Northern and Western States ; and as numbers alone formed 
the basis of representation, the wealth, the power, and the 
intelligence of the Southern States had been rapidly losing 
their influence, and, in fact, their independence, in the Lower 
House. For instance, in 1800 Virginia had 23 represen- 
tatives and Indiana only one, but in 1850 Virginia had only 
13 representatives and Indiana, instead of one, had 11. 



23 



Again, in 1800 North Carolina had two representatives, 
while Ohio had but one; whereas in 1850, while North 
Carolina had increased from two to eight, Ohio had increased 
her representatives in Congress from one to 21. So that 
in 1850, while the North and West had very materially 
increased the number of their representatives, the South had 
materially diminished. It then became a serious question 
with the people of the South, and they saw the effect of this 
in the rapid increase of taxation, or rather of protective 
duties ; they felt that they were saddled with heavy 
taxes, while practically they had no voice in their imposition, 
because the majorities of the West and of the North 
swamped on almost every occasion the representatives of the 
South. I need hardly remind the House that the South 
is a purely agricultural country, and its policy and interest 
is perfect free trade — to sell its cotton in the dearest 
market, and buy the manufactures it required in the cheapest. 
But the interest, or the supposed interest, of the North was 
protection ; and when the exports and imports of the United 
States are analyzed, it is not very difficult to arrive at the 
main causes of the disruption. It was, in fact, taxation with- 
out representation. 

I have thus given in the briefest possible form what I 
conceive to be the immediate cause of the war, but the 
causes which led to that war are of long standing and 
are deep rooted. A few words will, I think, suffice to show 
that the institution of slavery had very little to do with 
it, at least, much less than many people in this country sup- 
pose. President Lincoln, in his inauguration address of the 
4th of March 1861, made this solemn declaration : — " I have 
" no intention," he said, " to interfere, directly or indirectly, 
" in the question of slavery where it exists ; I do not think 
" that I have the right to do so legally,- and I am by no 
" means inclined to do so." Such was the policy of the 
Lincoln administrati on, and they have acted upon it. For 
the House will remember, that when General Fremont pro- 
claimed freedom to the slaves in Missouri, he was forth- 
with recalled from his command ; and the House cannot fail 
to remember that when General Hunter, at a subsequent 
date, issued a proclamation giving freedom to all the slave 
population at Beaufort under his immediate command, and 
in three neighbouring states (which, however, were nob 
under his control), that proclamation was at once dis- 
owned by President Lincoln and his cabinet. Again, when 
Mr. Cameron, the Secretary of War, in his report to the 



24 



President, stated that one object of the war was to free the 
slaves, the President struck out that clause, and would not 
admit that even one object of the war was the abolition of 
slavery, and the report appeared without it. But what do 
the people of the Northern States say to the question of 
slavery ? I am not about to give to the House the opinions 
of the tf New York Herald " as worthy of any very great 
consideration, but it is a paper which has by far the largest 
circulation of any newspaper in the United States. When I 
was in New York, about 18 months ago, it had reached a 
circulation of 120,000 copies daily, and was, I daresay, read 
every day by a million people. We]l, the editor himself, I 
believe, admits that his paper is published for sale, and that 
it would not sell if he did not advocate views in accordance 
Avith the sentiments of the large majority of the people of the 
North, and to suit their tastes. What then does the " New 
York Herald 9f say about the institution of slavery ? In a 
leading article which appeared in that paper not very long 
ago, and which many honourable members may have read, the 
editor, reviewing various sermons which had been preached 
on a day set apart for humiliation and prayer, says that 
" Negro slavery is a part of the constitution, and the attempt 
6: to abolish or impair it by Northern majorities in Congress, 
" or by the influence of the Executive, is a violation of the 
" Federal compact,— the incipient treason, the egg of the 
" serpent from which rebellion has been hatched. It is, 
" moreover, an imputation upon the character of Washington 

and Madison and the other founders of the Government, 
" who agreed, by a solemn league and covenant, that pro- 
" tection of the rights of slaveholders should be guaranteed 
" for ever to the Southern States. As to negro slavery/' he 
continues, "being a sin, not one of the clergymen who 
" preached against it on Thanksgiving Day attempted to 
" prove it, if we except Mr. Sloane, who quoted the case of 
" Pharaoh being punished for refusing to let the Israelites 
'• go from under his yoke/' 

Then the editor, writing, let the House remember, to please 
the Northern people, goes on to reason as if slavery was a 
divine institution, for he says : — " The Government is warned 
" by Cheever and others that God will not permit it to be 
" successful in the war unless the national sin of slavery is 
" abolished. When the war of the Revolution commenced, 
" every one of the thirteen colonies held slaves. Yet the 
" colonies triumphed. When the constitution was adopted 
" every state but one held slaves, and the institution was made 



25 



" part of that instrument. Yet the country prospered. In 
" the war of 1812-15 the institution flourished in all the 
" Southern and some of the Northern States. Still the 
" hand of God was with the nation, and England was again 
" whipped.'' 

He then winds up as follows : — " It is not negro slavery 
a that is the cause of the present national troubles, but the 
" satanic attempt to meddle with a benevolent institution, 
" which is equally for the benefit of blacks and whites on 
" this continent, and for the interest of the whole civilized 
" world. If the clergy will persist in turning the pulpit into 
" a political stump for preaching disunion, the sooner their 
" conventicles are shut up the better for the United States 
" and the rest of mankind/' 

I think, after these proofs, the House will be disposed to agree 
with me in the opinion that the abolition of slavery has 
very little to do with the war ; and that in the event of a 
division, I would be entitled to claim the votes of many 
honourable friends around me who have hitherto been earnest 
in the cause of the North, because they were under the im- 
pression that the Government and people of the North were 
earnest in their desire to suppress slavery. I need not enter 
upon the question of the utter impracticability of dealing in a 
summary manner with a question of such vast magnitude. 
Nor need I stop to inquire where the money is to be found to 
pay for the four million slaves, valued at 500,000,000^. sterling. 
Nor need I attempt to picture to the House the confusion, and, 
I might say, anarchy, which would arise from the immediate 
demolition of that institution. However much we may 
deplore the institution of slavery, we must look at the question 
of its immediate abolition not merely as benevolent but as 
practical men. 

May I now inquire how this unhappy war affects us. The 
great bulk of the cotton, as I have stated, which was pro- 
duced in the South, was exported to supply the manufacturers 
in Europe, and we were much the largest customers. I need 
hardly call the attention of the House to the amount of suffer- 
ing in the manufacturing districts, arising entirely from the 
stoppages of the supplies of cotton from the Southern States 
of America. By the last accounts the distress had increased 
to a degree almost unparalleled. At Preston the poor-rates 
amounted to no less 18s. in the pound. At Blackburn there 
were somewhere about 15,000 persons receiving relief ; at 
Preston upwards of 12,000, and at that place there were no less 
than 17,000 claimants upon the relief fund. The English people 



26 



were patient, and bore their trials often without complaint, 
but we must not test their patience and endurance to too 
great an extent. Only two days ago I received a letter from 
a labouring man, who told a very simple tale. " I can assure 
" you/' he said, " that in this part of the country (Ashton- 
" under-Lyne) we are very anxious. We think it high time 
" to give the Southern States the recognition they so richly 
" deserve. It would break a heart of stone to see the priva- 
" tions of the people here. We are willing to work, but 
u what can we do ? We can get no work, so we are obliged 
" to go to the parish to get relief, which we are ashamed to 
" ask for." 

The people already begin to inquire, What is the meaning 
of all this suffering ? and they had already arrived at the con- 
clusion that it was brought about by a war as vain as it was 
wicked ; for they felt that no power in the North could restore 
the Union, aud that the conquest could only result in per- 
manent separation ; but how few members of this House now 
feel that the broken Union can be restored. From the first 
I had but one opinion, for when I saw that 13 states, with a 
population of ] 1,500,000, had resolved to govern themselves, 
it was clear to my mind that the Union could no longer be 
maintained; and I have been confirmed in this conviction by the 
temper of the Confederate Congress to enforce their indepen- 
dence. Their determination cannot be better evinced than by 
the following resolution, unanimously adopted on March 5, 
1862:— 

" Whereas the United States are waging war with the Con- 
" federate States, with the avowed purpose of compelling the 
" latter to reunite with them under the same constitution and 
" Government ; and whereas the waging of war with such an 
" object is in direct opposition to the sound Republican maxim, 
" that 'all government rests upon the consent of the governed,' 
" and can only tend to consolidation in the general Govern- 
" ment, and the consequent destruction of the rights of the 
" States ; and whereas, this result being attained, the two 
" sections can only exist together in the relation of the op- 
" pressor and the oppressed, because of the great preponder- 
" ance of power in the Northern section, coupled with dis- 
" similarity of interests ; and whereas we, the representatives 
u of the people of the Confederate States in Congress 
" assembled, may be presumed to know the sentiments of the 
" said people, having just been elected by them, therefore be it 
" Resolved, That the Congress do solemnly declare and 
publish to the world that it is the unalterable determination 



27 



<l of the Confederate States (in humble reliance upon Almighty 
" God) to suffer all the calamities of the most protracted war, 
" but that they will never, on any terms, politically affiliate 
a with a people who are guilty of an invasion of their soil and 
" the butchery of their citizens." 

The victories of Manassas, Balls Bluff, Springfield, Shiloah, 
Fairoaks, Charleston, Richmond, and the expulsion of the 
Federals from the Valley of the Shenandoah, prove that, even 
under the most adverse and the most trying circumstances, the 
Confederates can not merely successfully resist, but can 
triumphantly conquer the superior forces of the North when 
beyond the range of their gun boats ; and that they are a 
nation, with a well organized and established Government, 
and with an army, and with some of the most distinguished 
statesmen and generals that any country ever produced, are 
facts which cannot be disputed. 

But even if the legions of the North overcame the armies of 
the South, there was a passive resistance still to be overcome, 
which no army could subdue. This was shown in the case 
of the mayor of New Orleans—-" We are at your mercy/' said 
that brave man, when the Federal army entered the capital 
of the South, " We are at your mercy, and you may deal with 
" us as you please, but your flag we cannot honour, your laws 
u we cannot respect, and your taxes we will not pay/' Such 
was the unanimous feeling of the whole of the Southern States. 
Throughout the whole of this war, we have been told, " Only 
" let the Union flag be hoisted in any part of the South, and 
" you will see how the Southern people will rally round it/' 
Well, that flag had now been flying at New Orleans for more 
than six months, and how many Southern people had returned 
to the Union ? The hoisting of that flag was to open a 
trade at Beaufort ; but though the people of the South were 
suffering for the very necessaries of life, yet they would have 
no dealings with the Northern people. The re-establishment 
of the Union was indeed hopeless. It was vain to suppose 
that the Northern and Southern states would ever again be 
united ; there was a yawning gulf between them which no 
power on earth could fill ; the Union now broken could never 
be restored. That being so it behoved England, in concert, 
he hoped, with the great powers of Europe, to offer her 
mediation, and in the name of our common humanity to adopt 
means to attempt at least to put an end to this vain and 
fratricidal struggle. Europe was deeply interested in it. 
Mediation on the basis of separation would be hailed with 
delight by the South, and if declined by the North I think 



28 



we should be justified in recognizing the South, and I am 
thoroughly convinced that the moral effect of recognition 
would produce peace. I have held from the first but one 
opinion in regard to this war, and if the House will bear 
with me, I will read an extract from a letter which I addressed 
more than 12 months ago (May 1861) to an eminent banker 
in New York. That letter found its way to the newspapers 
of the United States, and was extensively circulated, but I 
will not intrude upon the House the sufferings I have endured, 
and the annoyances to which I have been subjected through 
its publication. 

" Your deeply interesting letter/' I wrote, " reached me in 
" due course. I read it with feelings of no common interest. 
" The great problems to which you refer are now about to be 
" solved, — can the vast republic be held together without 
" bloodshed? Events have already proved that it cannot. 
" You are now about to enter upon the second and more 
" terrible act of the sad drama, and see if the Union can be 
!C restored and held together by bloodshed and coercion. I 
" daresay three-fourths of the people of the Northern States 

are of that opinion ; and therefore it may appear presump- 
C£ tuous on my part to offer any opinion ; but you invite me 
" to do so. Well, then, when I look to history, when I con- 
" sider the vast extent of your country, and find that the 
" interests of the South are opposed to the policy of the North ; 
" when I see that the two sections of your people differ in 
" feeling and in associations, in fact, differ in almost every- 
" thing except language ; and when I hear that they are 
" resolved, by the votes of their several State Legislatures, to 
" arm themselves and raise a vast army, not to coerce other 
" states or attack the North, but to defend themselves, I can- 
" not but feel that there must be separation, and that no force 
" which the North can bring to bear will ever re-unite the 
" Southern with the Northern States. But even if re-united 
" by force of arms you cannot treat them as a conquered 
" people. That would be contrary to the first principles of a 
" republican form of Government. You cannot force them to 
" be content and happy, and unless they are so it is impossible 
" for the Union to be held together. My political feelings are 
" all in favour of the people, and that form of government 
" which has been their form of government ; but I cannot hide 
" from myself the fact that thirty millions of people, spread 
" over thousands of miles of territory, cannot be held together 
" by a republican form of Government when a large portion 
<( of them are discontented and unhappy. Almost every friend 



29 



" I have resides in the North, and as the business of my firm 
a comes from that quarter, I would, if I could, view the ques- 
u tion as you do ; but history, reason, and common sense 
" appear to me, under the circumstances I have named, to be 
" opposed to your views. You will ask, what, then, is to be 
l - done ? That question is not so easily answered ; but I will 
" venture to say what I think you ought not to do, and that 
" is, Do not, I beseech you, march your armies into the South. 
" If you do, there will be the most terrible bloodshed the ivorld 
" ever saiv, and, after all, you will be further from the object 
" you have in view than you were when you commenced the 
" carnage. What then ? The only answer I can give is to 
" PAKT, and part in "peace, and J. say so in the cause of hu- 
u inanity and in your own interests, as well as in the interests 
ri of the world. Feeling, as I do, that the civil war can have 
" but one termination, the separation will be much more easy 
" now than it will be after you have roused every angry 
" passion, sacrificed thousands of lives and millions of treasure, 
" and given a blow to your country and your commerce from 
" which they will not recover in our generation. 

" I will not presume to offer an opinion in regard to the 
" terms of separation, but the good sense of your people, and 

the spirit of justice which pervades their actions, will soon 
" settle the conditions when once the sword is laid aside/' 

Events have proved how terribly true have been my pre- 
dictions. 

But apart altogether from my anxious desire to see an end 
put to this fearful war, and to the distress which our people 
are suffering, I do not hesitate to say, that both politically 
and commercially, it is for the interest of Europe, and above all 
for the interest of England that separation should take place. 

We know that the South would be prepared to adopt a free 
trade policy, and that they would be ready to enter into 
relations with this country to exchange directly their cotton 
and the other products of the South for our manufactures. 
And politically, it would be well for us and well for the world 
that a vast power like the United States should be divided. 

But is it really the case, as has been stated, that the offer of 
mediation would be scouted by the North ? I daresay if 
England or France alone made that offer it might be so, but I 
am certain it would not be so if made by the great powers of 
Europe combined. What was the present state of things in 
the North ? Why men of position, intelligence, and property 
were not allowed to express an opinion, unless it was in 
accordance with the views of an imbecile Cabinet, or an excited 



so 



mob. In proof of how earnestly mediation was desired by 
the better class of American citizens, I will read a portion of 
a letter which I have received from New York only this day, 
and which bears date of July 4th ; the writer says : — 

" Will England hesitate any longer to offer mediation X 
" Why, if she had in the past month of the war forcibly inter- 
" fered no greater ill-feeling could have been shown towards 
" her than has been shown under her magnanimous forbear- 
" ance. Nor need a war be feared if you recognize the South. 
" . . . . Gold is at 10 per cent, premium ; silver is dis- 
" appearing ; ' shin plasters/ or tradesmen's debt tickets, 
" becoming a currency ; millions of irredeemable paper con- 
" stantly issuing by Government, and millions more to come 

" if the war continues What is all this against 

" the stupendous power of England ? No, indeed, there is no 

" war short of England declaring it Is she afraid 

" of her Northern supplies of breadstuffs ? Let her consider 
" that her demand for these is the life-blood of our agricultural 
" states. They must sell to her. The probable loss of her 
" custom alone would cover her fronTany danger on our part. 
u We await her action in sad dismay." 

Such were the sentiments of many of the Northern people, 
and I believe the Government of Washington, seeing the hope- 
less position in which they have placed themselves, would be 
glad to have some excuse to bring to a termination this vain 
and terrible war. But the feeling expressed in the foregoing 
letter is not confined to New York. I have also this morning 
received a letter from Brunswick, in the State of Maine, dated 
also the 4th July, in which the writer, a gentleman of strong 
union feeling, says he now saw that the war was hopeless, and 
he trusted that the Powers of Europe would offer mediation. 
And now, I may ask, would Foreign Powers be prepared to go 
with us in offering this mediation ? Let our Government put 
it to the test. Let us, at least, offer to do so in concert with 
them. Humanity demands it ; reason suggests it. 

So far as regards France, I think there cannot be a doubt 
of the Emperor heartily concurring with this country in that 
line of policy, and of his anxious desire to act in concert with 
England. In fact, it is generally known and admitted that, 
from the beginning of this terrible and most unhappy war, the 
French Government saw the amount of evil that would arise 
from it, and that the Emperor with great reluctance acknow- 
ledged the blockade of the Southern ports. There is also every 
reason to believe that despatches were sent by him, and a 
communication made to Her Majesty's Government on the 



81 



subject of the inefficient of the blockade and the hopelessness 
of re-union. We also all know that his people are suffering 
most severely for the want of cotton ; and there are many 
circumstances which, must lead us to feel, almost to a certainty, 
that the Emperor is of opinion that the moment has arrived 
when the contending parties, greatly exhausted in men and 
means, would be disposed to listen to proposals of mediation, 
if made in a friendly spirit, by the great Powers of Europe. 

Our own interests require that the proposal should now be 
made, and humanity, as I have said, demands it, for the war 
has now become one of hatred and revenge. I say nothing 
about the vast sums of money which have been expended in 
this unnatural and terrible war, nor the tens of thousands of 
lives which have already been sacrificed, nor the awful misery 
which the war has inflicted, not merely on the people of 
America, but I might say upon the human race. It is clear 
that the South cannot be conquered. It is still more clear 
that the broken Union can never be restored, and therefore it 
does seem strange — it seems to me unnatural — that this war, 
involving ruin to millions on both sides of the Atlantic, should 
be allowed to continue without the Powers of Europe offering 
one word of counsel or remonstrance, while their own people 
are suffering through it, in all the manufacturing districts, an 
almost unparalleled amount of distress. Surely we have now 
seen enough of the stern endurance, and of the heroic conduct 
of the people of the South, and the perfect organization of 
their Government, to warrant us in saying that they are 
worthy to be admitted into the family of nations. 



LONDON * 
PRINTED BY SPOTTISYf OODE AND CO. 
NEW-STREET SQUARE 



